Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 01/17] ppc: Remove some stub POWER6 models

[Thomas Huth]

On 30.10.2016 12:11, David Gibson wrote:
> The CPU model table includes stub (commented out) definitions for
> CPU_POWERPC_POWER6_5 and CPU_POWERPC_POWER6A.  These are not real cpu
> models, but represent the POWER6 in some compatiblity modes.  If we ever
> do implement POWER6 (unlikely),

I think we should finally add at least basic support for POWER6. It
always confused me (from a user's point of view) that we have support
for POWER5+ and POWER7, but not for POWER6.

> we'll implement its compatibility modes in
> a different way (similar to what we do for POWER7 and POWER8).  So these
> stub definitions can be removed.
[...]
> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
> index 901cf40..506dee1 100644
> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.c
> @@ -1130,10 +1130,6 @@
>  #if defined(TODO)
>      POWERPC_DEF("POWER6",        CPU_POWERPC_POWER6,                 POWER6,
>                  "POWER6")
> -    POWERPC_DEF("POWER6_5",      CPU_POWERPC_POWER6_5,               POWER5,
> -                "POWER6 running in POWER5 mode")
> -    POWERPC_DEF("POWER6A",       CPU_POWERPC_POWER6A,                POWER6,
> -                "POWER6A")
>  #endif
>      POWERPC_DEF("POWER7_v2.3",   CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23,             POWER7,
>                  "POWER7 v2.3")
> diff --git a/target-ppc/cpu-models.h b/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
> index 7d9e6a2..aafbbd7 100644
> --- a/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
> +++ b/target-ppc/cpu-models.h
> @@ -549,8 +549,6 @@ enum {
>      CPU_POWERPC_POWER5             = 0x003A0203,
>      CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21        = 0x003B0201,
>      CPU_POWERPC_POWER6             = 0x003E0000,
> -    CPU_POWERPC_POWER6_5           = 0x0F000001, /* POWER6 in POWER5 mode */
> -    CPU_POWERPC_POWER6A            = 0x0F000002,
>      CPU_POWERPC_POWER_SERVER_MASK  = 0xFFFF0000,
>      CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_BASE        = 0x003F0000,
>      CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23         = 0x003F0203,


Patch looks good.

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <address@hidden>